This is one issue is actually disagree with Fred on, but not for Pro-Life reasons:
The affording of rights of citizenship is reserved for the Federal government. To declare a fetus protected the same as a “born” individual means to afford it the right of citizenship.
I maintain that the abortion issue’s resolution SHOULD NOT BE solely centered around personal freedom or religious convictions, it is the decision resides with CONGRESS.
Congress’ legitimate powers are enumerated in Article I, Section 8. The ratification conferences specifically told the states that the federal gov would have NO OTHER POWERS.
Abortion isn’t listed, so Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction, and neither does the USSC.
Rights aren’t really decided on a whim, or in Congress. They are individual, and inherent to all humans. We happen to live in a country that acknowledges these individual, inherent rights. But to have them acknowledged, you must be a citizen of this country. To be a citizen, you must first be born into this country.
IMO, all of our individual, inherent rights are derived from our individual, inherent right to own property, fundamentally, our own bodies. We either own our own bodies, or we rent them from the state.
But I will agree that we no longer have an acknowledged, individual, inherent right to own our own bodies. There are countless pieces of legislation that supports that assertion.
So since precedence shows we do not truly own our own bodies, and that we rent them from the state, then the state does have the privilege to legislate any property rights issues, including the property which is your body.
That being the case, there would really be no Constitutional amendment needed. Congress just passes a law that prohibits abortion across the board. Because the federal government does indeed own our bodies. If the federal government doesn’t own our bodies, then there is alot of legislation that needs overturned. But since the federal government does own our own bodies, then it’s up to them.
Please name an individual, inherent right which is not derived from our individual, inherent right to own property, fundamentally, our own bodies.
I know it sucks that anyone would even ever consider an abortion. It really, truly does. But legislating against that cuts at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to our rights. If you have to choose between losing all of your rights, just to put those abortionists in jail, or not, would you really give up all of your rights ?
Because that’s exactly what that does. It pushes us in the opposite direction. It further strengthens the state’s view that they own our bodies. Which they don’t. That’s why America exists. Because our forefathers realized that without property rights, there are no other rights.
Again, it’s sad and disgusting that one would ever choose abortion. It’s horrible that Planned Parenthood is now having record profits. But if you don’t own your body, then you have no gun rights either. Right ? If you can’t own yourself, then you don’t get any rights, as who would they go to ? The rights you would think you have, would be forwarded up the chain to the state.
Not just abortion, but every single political issue that exists today. If you are against hypocrisy, and the Democrat’s notion that whatever sounds good at the time is good, then you should seriously consider if your opinions are aligned properly. It makes sense to start with the self, i.e., that first and foremost we have an individual, inherent right to own our own minds and bodies. Then, other rights can be derived from that. When thinking of any issue, first go back to the top of the hierarchy, and check yourself. This does go against the mentality of “freedom is only freedom for things I agree with”, but that’s not really freedom at all, is it ?
Wrong. The fetus would only have to be declared a “person” to be guaranteed the right to life. They don’t need to be made citizens. Even illegal aliens have the right to live. Some people just don’t want American babies to have as many rights as illegal aliens